Senate votes down anti-Net Neutrality resolution

A Senate resolution opposing the FCC's Net Neutrality rules has been voted …

The US Senate has decided the Federal Communications Commission's Net Neutrality rules are OK after all. Senators voted down S.J. Res 6 ("Disapproval of Federal Communications Commission Rule Regulating the Internet and Broadband Industry Practices") which criticized the FCC's rules, 52-46 on Thursday morning. President Obama had threatened to veto the resolution had it landed on his desk.

The Senate's vote was cheered by advocates of Net Neutrality rules. "We are pleased that the Senate stopped this dangerous resolution in its tracks," said Free Press Action Fund President and CEO Craig Aaron in a statement. "The Senate sent a strong signal today to would-be gatekeepers that the free and open Internet needs to stay that way. The American public doesn't want phone and cable companies undercutting competition, deciding which websites will work, or censoring what people can do online."

There are still other threats to the FCC's regulatory regime, most notable lawsuits filed by telecoms opposing Net Neutrality rules.

48 Reader Comments

I wouldn't call 52-46 a "strong signal." I know it might invite comment trolling, but when we see party-line votes like this, we really need to point out which parties are for/against said resolution so we can call them on it.

I wouldn't call 52-46 a "strong signal." I know it might invite comment trolling, but when we see party-line votes like this, we really need to point out which parties are for/against said resolution so we can call them on it.

Introduced by Sen. Hutchison (R-TX).

Republicans all voted yes (except McCain), and Democrats all voted No (except Inouye).

Hmm, can't imagine why the current Congressional approval rating is 9% as of the end of October.

Couldn't be because we have two parties that have decided to act like petulant children. If the R's want it then D's don't and vice versa. Unless of course a corporation has bribed both major parties with enough lobbying money.

I wouldn't call 52-46 a "strong signal." I know it might invite comment trolling, but when we see party-line votes like this, we really need to point out which parties are for/against said resolution so we can call them on it.

Introduced by Sen. Hutchison (R-TX).

Republicans all voted yes (except McCain), and Democrats all voted No (except Inouye).

So many double negatives, I can't tell if anti-net neutrality being voted down is a good or bad thing!

You can tell us. We won't tell anyone else.

Well, I support an open and free Internet, but the FCC's mandated rules are more Net-Neutered-ality than anything. So what was actually voted down today? Was it calling into question some of the vagueness of the literal rules, trying to get some teeth behind them? Or was it a whole new thing spearheaded by Big Content?

So many double negatives, I can't tell if anti-net neutrality being voted down is a good or bad thing!

You can tell us. We won't tell anyone else.

Well, I support an open and free Internet, but the FCC's mandated rules are more Net-Neutered-ality than anything. So what was actually voted down today? Was it calling into question some of the vagueness of the literal rules, trying to get some teeth behind them? Or was it a whole new thing spearheaded by Big Content?

If you're too f'ing lazy to even know what the legislation says (which is linked in the first sentence of the article), then you really shouldn't bother to respond.

I wouldn't call 52-46 a "strong signal." I know it might invite comment trolling, but when we see party-line votes like this, we really need to point out which parties are for/against said resolution so we can call them on it.

Introduced by Sen. Hutchison (R-TX).

Republicans all voted yes (except McCain), and Democrats all voted No (except Inouye).

Honestly? This is why I like McCain.

I don't think was a good presidential canidate to run against Obama (and Palin was a retarded darkhorse for a VP canidate), but does generally seem to be a good guy. He voted against torture *ahem* "enhanced interrogation" as well (probably due to his experience as a POW).

He also consistently is one of only about 4 congressmembers who don't introduce any pork money, despite everyone claiming they won't / don't introduce pork.

McCain might not read email, but at least he has the sense to not interfere with my ability to do so.

1. is there any empirical evidence that ISPs have an incentive to close their networks? 2. the FCC's four examples of market misdeeds over the past seven years do not demand market-wide regulation.3. regulatory uncertainty stagnates industry.

I wouldn't call 52-46 a "strong signal." I know it might invite comment trolling, but when we see party-line votes like this, we really need to point out which parties are for/against said resolution so we can call them on it.

Introduced by Sen. Hutchison (R-TX).

Republicans all voted yes (except McCain), and Democrats all voted No (except Inouye).

Honestly? This is why I like McCain.

He didn't vote at all? Neither did Inouye. Did they both not like the party stance, but but also didn't want to piss off everyone in their parties?

You like him because he didn't vote, or maybe taking a nap? Or you think he voted for net neutrality? Count the number of votes (52-46) (hint: there are 2 Senators from each state, in case you missed that episode of schoolhouse rock).

Floor a bill to crack down on net neutrality, but ignore the border issues with have with Mexico. Sounds back-asswards. Then again, if it wasn't for illegal hispanics coming to TX from across the border, we wouldn't have an easily exploitable source of slave labor to shoulder the TX economy on. *sigh*

I keep waiting for the day telco's finally get the internet landscape segregated like cellphone landscape. They'd love that. Charge you $10k for "roaming fees" to download some porn from Europe. They want to whittle things down slowly, but they want to get there eventually.

So many double negatives, I can't tell if anti-net neutrality being voted down is a good or bad thing!

You can tell us. We won't tell anyone else.

Well, I support an open and free Internet, but the FCC's mandated rules are more Net-Neutered-ality than anything. So what was actually voted down today? Was it calling into question some of the vagueness of the literal rules, trying to get some teeth behind them? Or was it a whole new thing spearheaded by Big Content?

It was introduced by the Republicans. I think that tells you all you need to know.

Basically, it was trying to say that the FCC doesn't have any authority whatsoever to regulate the internet, so no Net Neutrality rules can be put into place. The entire thing is purely for the benefit of the industry. Not a lick of benefit to the people.

1. is there any empirical evidence that ISPs have an incentive to close their networks? 2. the FCC's four examples of market misdeeds over the past seven years do not demand market-wide regulation.3. regulatory uncertainty stagnates industry.

1. Yes. Closing networks means less traffic, meaning they don't have to upgrade as much. Meaning more pure profit.

2. That's debatable. Many of us seem to think they do, as we do not trust the shitty market in ISPs to fix anything, and we don't think a "free market" will be able to fix things fast enough, if at all.

3. The industry was already stagnated, as most really refused to upgrade their networks. There was the huge hissy fit that Time Warner threw, saying they wouldn't upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 unless they could roll out Usage Based Billing, which nobody wanted. Furthermore, one has to realize that if the ISPs get their way, and get to filter and cap to their heart's content, what will that do to the far more important source of innovation, the actual web? There is no way that Facebook or Netflix would have come close to being what they are today if the ISPs had gotten their way years ago.

Democrats: Freedom is good.Republicans: Regulation is bad for business.

There is a more complicated analysis somewhere, but this is the limit of my writing and thinking ability. Both sides are correct, of course.

I can't agree that the Republican stance is always bad. Furthermore, one has to decide on the merits between making it "harder" (not always the case) for business, and in protecting and improving society. Air pollution regulations are probably "bad for business", but most people believe that the needs of society in protecting the environment are more important.

The only way for small companies to increase market share form google, facebook, youtube and other giants were this ISP caps. Now is impossible for them.

One more time a law that appears to be good is in fact a terrible thing for users and for the internet itself.

In a few years we will have the same people that passed the neutrality law creating more laws to decrease the dominant position of Google or Facebook.

Care to expand on how caps will help small companies ? If you're talking about data caps, I don't see how that would favor one side or the other. If your talking about NN I would think it would help smaller companies by having a lower barrier of entry, ie cheaper to put a website up.

The only way for small companies to increase market share form google, facebook, youtube and other giants were this ISP caps. Now is impossible for them.

One more time a law that appears to be good is in fact a terrible thing for users and for the internet itself.

In a few years we will have the same people that passed the neutrality law creating more laws to decrease the dominant position of Google or Facebook.

Care to expand on how caps will help small companies ? If you're talking about data caps, I don't see how that would favor one side or the other. If your talking about NN I would think it would help smaller companies by having a lower barrier of entry, ie cheaper to put a website up.

Sorry I was talking about the ISP idea to do not include google or facebook or youtube in their basic plans so you need to pay more $ per month if you want to use this pages. Do not know what is the correct name.

The only way for small companies to increase market share form google, facebook, youtube and other giants were this ISP caps. Now is impossible for them.

One more time a law that appears to be good is in fact a terrible thing for users and for the internet itself.

In a few years we will have the same people that passed the neutrality law creating more laws to decrease the dominant position of Google or Facebook.

Care to expand on how caps will help small companies ? If you're talking about data caps, I don't see how that would favor one side or the other. If your talking about NN I would think it would help smaller companies by having a lower barrier of entry, ie cheaper to put a website up.

Sorry I was talking about the ISP idea to do not include google or facebook or youtube in their basic plans so you need to pay more $ per month if you want to use this pages. Do not know what is the correct name.

No, that's net neutrality. And what do you think would stop the ISPs from leaving the smaller sites out of the basic tier in the first place? You think if there was a basic "News" tier that Ars would be on it (READ: Be able to bribe the ISP enough to be included)?

Sorry I was talking about the ISP idea to do not include google or facebook or youtube in their basic plans so you need to pay more $ per month if you want to use this pages. Do not know what is the correct name.

A) I've never heard anyone anyone mention a plan like this. You may be confusing it with bandwidth caps, which effectively limit access to video streaming sites.

B) The correct name for plans like this is "an incredibly awful idea that nobody would willingly sign up for."

So many double negatives, I can't tell if anti-net neutrality being voted down is a good or bad thing!

You can tell us. We won't tell anyone else.

Well, I support an open and free Internet, but the FCC's mandated rules are more Net-Neutered-ality than anything. So what was actually voted down today? Was it calling into question some of the vagueness of the literal rules, trying to get some teeth behind them? Or was it a whole new thing spearheaded by Big Content?

It was introduced by the Republicans. I think that tells you all you need to know.

Basically, it was trying to say that the FCC doesn't have any authority whatsoever to regulate the internet, so no Net Neutrality rules can be put into place. The entire thing is purely for the benefit of the industry. Not a lick of benefit to the people.

I don't know a whole lot about the FCC, but I thought they could regulate communications that go over public property.

No, that's net neutrality. And what do you think would stop the ISPs from leaving the smaller sites out of the basic tier in the first place? You think if there was a basic "News" tier that Ars would be on it (READ: Be able to bribe the ISP enough to be included)?

Well because not many people is going to pay +20$ per month for read a web that do not have huge traffic.

They want to make money, and the way to do that is making plans with the sites that most people use and consume their bandwidth. That was the whole idea that generate the neutrality thing.

I don think Ars would be in these plans because is not a massive site like CNN or FOX news.

Sorry I was talking about the ISP idea to do not include google or facebook or youtube in their basic plans so you need to pay more $ per month if you want to use this pages. Do not know what is the correct name.

A) I've never heard anyone anyone mention a plan like this. You may be confusing it with bandwidth caps, which effectively limit access to video streaming sites.

No no, these plans were prepared by some european ISPs, I suppose in america ISPs do the same thing and this generate "neutrality" laws in a lot of countries.

So many double negatives, I can't tell if anti-net neutrality being voted down is a good or bad thing!

Excuses me, I believe you meant to use the term "doublespeak"... And you are correct, I had to read the article fully before I understood if this is a good thing for the people or not. Now, we just have to ensure that our own corporate arse-kissing government here in Canada feels the pressure to scrap Bill C-11 once and for all!( http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... 516&File=9 )

1. is there any empirical evidence that ISPs have an incentive to close their networks? 2. the FCC's four examples of market misdeeds over the past seven years do not demand market-wide regulation.3. regulatory uncertainty stagnates industry.

1. Yes. Closing networks means less traffic, meaning they don't have to upgrade as much. Meaning more pure profit.

I don't think you understand what "empirical" means. It means, based on actual observations of reality. You gave a theoretical answer, based on your speculation as to the business models of the ISPs. The OP is looking for real-life examples of where this has actually happened or appears imminently likely to happen. Otherwise, the possibility exists that we are imposing costly regulation to solve a non-existent problem.

1. is there any empirical evidence that ISPs have an incentive to close their networks? 2. the FCC's four examples of market misdeeds over the past seven years do not demand market-wide regulation.3. regulatory uncertainty stagnates industry.

1. Yes. Closing networks means less traffic, meaning they don't have to upgrade as much. Meaning more pure profit.

I don't think you understand what "empirical" means. It means, based on actual observations of reality. You gave a theoretical answer, based on your speculation as to the business models of the ISPs. The OP is looking for real-life examples of where this has actually happened or appears imminently likely to happen. Otherwise, the possibility exists that we are imposing costly regulation to solve a non-existent problem.

If the problem is "non-existent", then there shouldn't be much, if anything, in costs. However, I'd much prefer not to wait until after the ISPs start pulling this shit, when it'll be far harder to roll back, and odds are it'll never get rolled back completely .